Sounding Off:

In the continuing community debate over health-care reform, many writers have emphasized the need for tort reform.

However, the word today from Washington is that tort reform is currently dead.

But there is another alternative worth considering.

CORE Courts.

In 1997, Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank, published “Justice Matters: Rescuing the Legal System for the 21st Century.” “Justice Matters” never received the attention it deserved.

But the fundamental ideas remain valid.

“Justice Matters” suggested that a common-sense alteration in the structure of the civil court system might have the same effect.

Most courts are of “general jurisdiction,” taking whatever cases come before them. But we also have numerous specialty courts for matters that require unusual expertise, sensitivity, or both. Why not expand the use of specialty courts to include matters of enormous complexity such as medicine?

CORE Courts.

The acronym stands for Commonalty/Resolution. Such courts have the following characteristics:

 They deal with only one subject or group of related subjects.

 Judges would be required to be knowledgeable in their subjects, to include formal continuing education and examinations.

 Special jury pools of qualified people might be constituted, making the “jury of peers” more than a matter of whoever might be available.

These courts could have their own experts, either staff or on-call, thus diminishing the impact of partisan “hired gun” experts provided by contending counsel.

The emphasis would be on reaching settlement at the lowest possible level.

But when the ideas finally began to float, the objections from the lawyers revealed nothing so much as their profound institutional and personal aversion to any change.

Among the common objections encountered: Specialty courts enjoyed less status than general courts and would not attract “the best people” as judges (One might think that ruling on matters of great import would attract the best people).

Knowledgeable juries were “undemocratic” (Also harder for the lawyers to manipulate).

Finally, a few were honest enough to admit the truth of that old adage that no one is ever rational where his or her livelihood is concerned.

The louder the trial lawyers scream that something can’t be done, the more it should be considered.

And it would be interesting if some law school or think tank takes up the idea of medical courts and runs with it a bit.

Justice would be served. And no one gets rich off the system and your premiums.

MICHAEL GLUECK is a resident of Newport Beach.